Comments on: Sudan To Choose Who “Intervenes” in Their Crimes? http://politicsandpress.com/2006/sudan-to-choose-who-intervenes-in-their-crimes/ The interaction of the press and politics; public diplomacy, and daily absurdities. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:00:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3 by: Jeff http://politicsandpress.com/2006/sudan-to-choose-who-intervenes-in-their-crimes/#comment-52 Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:01:09 +0000 http://politicsandpress.com/2006/sudan-to-choose-who-intervenes-in-their-crimes/#comment-52 Added to the "ambiguity" is the reports in the U.S. press that Sudan has agreed to joint UN/AU forces when it appears that is not really the case. This morning's NY Times and Boston globe both ran pieces on the Sudanese "agreement" and they seem, at best, premature. The role of the UN in all of this is sad, maybe even pathetic, but in some ways represents the difficulty (impossibility?) of acting coherently and strongly when one member of the Security Council holds the rest hostage. This is not the first time this has happened of course. The solution to the stalemate in the UN re: Serbia and Kosovo was a unilateral bombing attack by NATO, led by the U.S. Alas, it could also be argued that a similar stalemate led to the U.S. unilateral (ok ok - supported by the "coalition of the willing" or whatever it was euphemistically called) invasion of Iraq. And in some ways Israel's continued bombing of Lebanon was enabled by the U.S.'s role in the Council. Reinforcing Kiwi's conclusion that the system simply does not work, but leaving the question of what to do to fix it - or the larger question - is it fixable??? Added to the “ambiguity” is the reports in the U.S. press that Sudan has agreed to joint UN/AU forces when it appears that is not really the case. This morning’s NY Times and Boston globe both ran pieces on the Sudanese “agreement” and they seem, at best, premature.

The role of the UN in all of this is sad, maybe even pathetic, but in some ways represents the difficulty (impossibility?) of acting coherently and strongly when one member of the Security Council holds the rest hostage. This is not the first time this has happened of course. The solution to the stalemate in the UN re: Serbia and Kosovo was a unilateral bombing attack by NATO, led by the U.S. Alas, it could also be argued that a similar stalemate led to the U.S. unilateral (ok ok - supported by the “coalition of the willing” or whatever it was euphemistically called) invasion of Iraq. And in some ways Israel’s continued bombing of Lebanon was enabled by the U.S.’s role in the Council.

Reinforcing Kiwi’s conclusion that the system simply does not work, but leaving the question of what to do to fix it - or the larger question - is it fixable???

]]>